[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and

From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:18:54 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

() Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
() Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:40:34 -0500

   I guess I just don't know what's weird about it.

Well, non-trivial packages require "make dist" to actually
DTRT.  That step presupposes "make" (and for conscientious
authors, "make check").  These are visisble steps and their
machinery is transparent to the authors.  For the user, the
steps are "configure" and "make install".  (All this you
probably know, i expect.)

For trivial packages, it's possible to conflate many of these
explicit steps, and that's what the GNU ELPA system design
does.  The weirdness is that this over-specialization is a
step backward from the Generally Accepted Packaging Practice.
It gives up the benefits of the "separate compilation" model
and forces the "interpreter" (phase-less) model on everyone.

I was initially enthusiastic about "bump version to release"
but now have come to the conclusion that i prefer GAPP.  I
feel more comfortable being responsible for "make check" and
"make dist", and delivering a fully-elaborated package, thus
owning (and learning from) my errors and not pointing fingers.
Call me a control freak, i won't deny it.

Besides, philosophically, when "make dist" is on the server,
then GNU ELPA is effectively SaaSS.  'Nuff said...

Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]